Gabba Test Day 5

NOT since Arnold Schwarzenegger was an out-of-control cyborg has technology caused so much whimpering. Umpires have become part-human, part-machine (Billy Bowden as The Sir-minator?) and the business of adjudication is a wing of the IT industry, but, surprise surprise, the players still aren't happy.

Three times, in a first Test that was already tough enough for bowlers, dismissals were reversed because a radio call and a slow-motion replay combined to show that the bowler had overstepped.

Had each wicket been taken, the alternate universes are tantalising. Jacques Kallis falling on Friday afternoon might have triggered a South African collapse (or brought J.P. Duminy to the wicket and changed his history). Ed Cowan being out on Sunday, or Hashim Amla yesterday, could have meant swift and savage defeat for either team.

Out, then not out: Peter Siddle looks at his footmarks after his dismissal of Jacques Kallis on the first day was ruled not out on review, due to a no-ball. Photo: Getty Images

For all but the relieved batsmen, there was a sense of third umpire as killjoy. When the immovable popping crease came on screen, players on both sides reacted with a sense of grievance.

Advertisement

It's hard to see why. With each advance in technology, the players have wanted exactitude to be given precedence over human error and they have got what they wished for.

The no-balls were no-balls. To gripe and grizzle about the technology would be akin to David Petraeus blaming his problems on that darned internet machine.

Umpiring technology was brought in to ''take human error out of the game'', as if human error isn't the whole essence of the game. What it has done is shift the balance of human error from the umpires back to the players, where it belongs.

The officials in Brisbane had good games. For the most part, the umpires got it right and the technology backed them up. If anyone got it wrong, it was players who misjudged their run-ups or wasted their DRS referrals either through over-excitement or, when Amla was out on Sunday, under-excitement.

Rather than screw up their faces and curse the fates, cricketers on both sides should be thankful they do not play in the National Rugby League, where the on-field officials make no decisions, which the video officials then get wrong.

It could be a lot worse but there always seems someone or something else to blame.

When Graeme Smith was looking for some help in slowing the game, he looked skywards, not to God but to his avatar on the cricket field, Spidercam, which was bothering the batsmen like a nagging conscience. Or it was the sightscreen, or someone near it. I can't remember a game when bowlers were so often stopped mid-approach by batsmen waving to something in the crowd. Freeze, everyone: a batsman is on strike.

As for the bat-and-ball part of the game, Australia might take more out of this match psychologically, not because it was the better team but because it survived the sterner test and then made the running. The Australians probably surprised their opponents more than their opponents surprised them, and that might count for something.

South Africa had its moment of impending crisis on Tuesday when a terrific early spell from James Pattinson ripped out their openers and Peter Siddle was tearing in and fired up. But Kallis, who began playing for a draw on Sunday, was the perfect man for the job.

In fact, when Siddle removed Amla and the barometer was rising, Kallis charged down the track to loft Nathan Lyon for a six and a four, just as he hadn't done on Sunday when his team needed quick runs. Never can Kallis be accused of not taking each ball as it comes.

For Adelaide, South Africa will have to find replacements for Duminy and, presumably, the ineffective Rory Kleinveldt. Half of Australia's team will take great inspiration from this game and the other half will be looking for some.

It has been hard otherwise to compare the teams on a pitch that offered the bowlers so little and when a day was lost to rain.

Let's hope the series breaks the usual rule of sequels, and II and III will be much better contests than part I.